Surprise—Teens Ignore Adults Who Tell Them to Not Have Sex

Ronald Bailey | April 14, 2007

A long-term study of "abstinence only sex education" shows that it doesn't work. The Washington Post reports:

A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.

The Feds spend $176 million per year on the failed program. Harry Wilson, a top official in the Department of Health and Human Services, told the Post that $176 million:

"is not that much money when it comes to offering an alternative to the other message."

Not that much money? After all, the money is really just symbolic and needn't actually accomplish anything, just so long as it garners votes from religious conservatives.

Anyway, the good news is that teen pregnancies are down largely due to greater use of contraception.

By the way, a new report, Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003, finds that most Americans have been enjoying premarital sex for a long time. To wit:

Contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

The new study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time. According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

Whole WaPo article on abstinence-only findings here.

Comments

VM|4.14.07 @ 12:10PM|#

thanks for the interesting article, Ron!

"is really just symbolic and needn't actually accomplish anything, just so long as it garners votes from religious conservatives"

amen.

Penn and Teller have a fun show on this topic, as most probably know.

cheers!

VM

|4.14.07 @ 12:24PM|#

Preliminary comment:

"Contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage."

The more relvant question is about the number of women (or men) who had premarital sex with someone *other than the person they ultimately married.* Has this figure remained constant over the years? If it had, I suspect the media would be trumpeting the figures. But what do I know?

On to the point of this post:

First, let me say I'm shocked, shocked to find that a federal program has failed in its (avowed) objectives. Bringing teenagers into a room for a couple hours a week and telling them not to have sex fails to overcome the social conditioning implicit in coed public education, titillating public entertainment, etc. True abstinence education would involve disciplining students who violate canons of chastity. Talking to them isn't going to cut it. So of course the abstinence money is wasted.

Second, let's apply some political realism to the question. The culture in Washington is such that every problem must have a federal solution, ie, spend money from the federal treasury. Anyone whose proposed solution involves federal *non*-involvement has forfeited credibility.

In this context, when the "comprehensive sex ed" people come up with their "solution" - spend money on our program - anyone who wants to oppose this must come up with a counterproposal to spend money on *another* program. See what happens if you just say, "no more federal spending on sex ed!" You'll get ignored or marginalized. Thus, the origin of "abstinence education."

The WaPo, of course, is not trying to get rid of federally-funded sex ed. They want to promote funding for their favorit program - "comprehensive" sex ed. How has comprehensive sex ed worked? Yeah, it worked like a charm!

As for kids using contraception - yeah, I'm sure their sex ed teachers will try to take the credit for that. But I'm skeptical.

Mike Laursen|4.14.07 @ 12:33PM|#

I found that belonging to Math Club was an effective deterrent to teenage sex.

Fluffy|4.14.07 @ 12:39PM|#

"The more relvant question is about the number of women (or men) who had premarital sex with someone *other than the person they ultimately married.*"

Why is that the more relevant question?

thoreau|4.14.07 @ 12:43PM|#

Ron, you forgot to add that you don't own stock in any company selling sex education textbooks.

:)

But, in regard to the $176 million spent on abstinence-only programs, I suspect that the program has actually been incredibly successful in achieving its goals. How much you wanna bet that a lot of that money went to textbook authors, consultants, various developers of "educational materials", and other people with powerful friends in the Religious Right?

If viewed as a way of rewarding cronies, then this program has been a smashing success. How else to explain the Religious Right's fanatical devotion to the Pharisees of the Bush administration?

D.A. Ridgely|4.14.07 @ 12:48PM|#

More relevant or not, it's an interesting question. My guess is that many previously celibate women in earlier generations did consider engagement a sufficient commitment to have sex. Then again, no doubt many premarital pregnancies were the direct cause of marriage. So who knows? And how would you ever go about figuring out which was which?

D.A. Ridgely|4.14.07 @ 12:55PM|#

thoreau:

No argument with your supposition, but let's not suggest even by omission that this makes the Bush administration any different from its predecessors. Head Start springs to mind here, but finding failed federal programs that political supporters profit from isn't exactly the hardest thing to do.

Oh, and I'm more suspicious of Mr. Bailey not denying any vast holdings in contraceptive companies. Could it be, given such omission, that his writing on this subject is something of a Trojan Horse?

thoreau|4.14.07 @ 12:59PM|#

Agreed, DAR.

|4.14.07 @ 1:03PM|#

Mad Max

You make the start of a good point about coed education. Sometimes I wonder whether religious conservatives could stomach sex-segregated schools, knowing that with no girls around, their horny teenage boys would certainly not be knocking up girls, but they might be diddling each other. (And of course, girls in all-girls' schools would be going lessie, as they naturally do.) If I were a religious conservative, I ask myself, which would I prefer, assuming I could not avoid one or the other? Since I'm more practically-minded, I think I might prefer my son have a teenage affair with another teenage boy, than get some girl pregnant. Fortunately, I have no kids, so I don't have to worry.

I should mention, though, that the real problem with these weak abstinence programs is that they do not involve the use of hoses and sticks, nor do they beat into kids' heads that all teenage boys are liars and jackasses, and all teenage girls are whores.

|4.14.07 @ 1:05PM|#

So no matter what you say to teens they will end up being relatively similar in their stupidity and impulsiveness?

As the father of an 11 year-old girl, I am not glad to hear this.

|4.14.07 @ 1:05PM|#

The figures on premarital sex are designed to convey a specific message: "Women were having as much premarital sex in the 1950s as they were today, and what's good enough for the 1950s is good enough for our modern era!" A curious argument for a progressive type to make - holding up the past as a model for the present - but never mind that for now.

The relevance is that, if it turns out that a greater proportion of the premarital sex back then was with future spouses, then that changes the picture the progressives are trying to paint. The norm the progressives are advocating is that it's time we got over the quaint superstitution of linking sex with marriage. So if it turns out that the humping back in the 1950s involved a lot of future spouses, not *Sex and the City* stuff, then the comparison loses much of its rhetorical force.

Both birth-control and abortion have become more widely available, and socially acceptable since the benighted 1950s, a scenario which progressives used to predict would cut down on the number of out-of-wedlock births. This has not happened. How to explain the "paradox"? Possibly there's a greater rate of people having sex with partners they have no intention of marrying, even if pregnancy results.

Thrall|4.14.07 @ 1:09PM|#

Ugh. Just get rid of federal public schools.

By the way..humans evolved to do two functions..to have sex and to eat as much as possible. To deny either of those is stupid.

We invented condoms and the pill to prevent unwanted pregnancies from the human desire to have sex. Religion is all about denying human nature because it is impure and god is above us.

To me, sex is not as "vice". The human body is great, and to me the womans body is especially great. There is nothing wrong with looking at the opposite sex, or your own sex and getting aroused. It's nature, don't deny it.

The whole idea that we were animals before we got a soul and now we don't reproduce because of the soul is stupid.

|4.14.07 @ 1:12PM|#

mk

Come on. You were a teen once. We were all stupid then.

I, for instance, was immortal, omniscient, and infinitely wise! And I continued to be so until I got my first real job around age 23, and my boss taught me otherwise.

These days, although I never called him that when I was a teen, I refer to my 71-year-old father as "sir."

|4.14.07 @ 1:14PM|#

Please, Coach, no more cold showers.

|4.14.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Damn! I am so glad I have no kids! I really don't think I could handle it. I can't decide whether my greater nightmare is to have half a dozen sons, or half a dozen daughters.

|4.14.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Even if the school stayed coed, the administrators could at least decide to treat an unchaste student *at least* as harshly as a student who wore a Confederate battle flag T-shirt. That in itself would have more educational value than any number of "abstinence classes."

Ultimately, this goes (as do many issues) to the root issue of public schooling (I originally typed "pubic schooling"). There's no more reason to have a government-operated school than a government-operated church.

Fluffy|4.14.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Max, that doesn't make any sense, unless you theorize that the people in the 40's and 50's were able to foretell the future like gypsy psychics or something.

If you have sex with a person you're not married to, it's premarital sex. Period. You can't KNOW that the person you're fucking will eventually be your spouse - you can suspect it, but not know it. That means that at the moment you're having the sex, you're having it with a person you may or may not marry - the same as everyone else having premarital sex.

The distinction you're trying to draw arises from the bad consciences of people who had sex before marriage, but don't want their kids to do so - so they improvise a way that their premarital sex "didn't count".

|4.14.07 @ 1:16PM|#

jimmy smith...

so...you tok cold showers with your coach, huh?

|4.14.07 @ 1:16PM|#

took

MJ|4.14.07 @ 1:20PM|#

"Why is that the more relevant question?"

If teens in the good ole days were having premarital sex in committed relationships that eventually soldified into marriages, then negative consequences: children out of wedlock, VD were mitigated as opposed to people who may today treating sex as a casual pasttime.

"Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom."

Does not that suggest that "comprehensive" sex ed has little effect as well?

|4.14.07 @ 1:21PM|#

Thrall,

The position you refute (the body is impure, only the soul or spirit is pure) is known as mind-body dualism. You will be glad to know that the Catholic Church denounced such heresies from the very beginning, and even declared a Crusade against the followers of one such heresy (Albigensian Crusade).

Despite, or I should say *because of,* its respect for the human body as a divine creation, the Church opposes the abuse thereof by overeating (gluttony) or extramarital sex and like misconduct (lust).

[clever punch line to be added later]

|4.14.07 @ 1:26PM|#

So I guess the question is mainly for parents of teenage children: do you want your unmarried children to have sex, and if not, why not?

If you don't, what are you going to do to stop them? Abstinence programs evidently don't work all that well. Same-sex schools work well-enough, but are you willing to turn a blind eye to situational homosexuality? (I went to an all boys' school myself; trust me, it might not have been a gay pervert's fantasy, but there were a lot of mutual j/o's between guys who later grew up to be straight arrows.). Have them castrated? Chastity belts? Watch them every minute? Or maybe sit them down, tell them everything, and buy them condoms?

Really, parents, it's your responsibility, whatever you decide. Please just stop asking me, a taxpayer, to fund your refusal to do your job.

(When I become a parent within a few months, I will, of course, take an entirely different view...:) )

|4.14.07 @ 1:34PM|#

I don't know if ex-Senator Robert Packwood (R-Oregon) qualifies as a "gypsy fortune teller," but he used to be a prominent liberal Republican (until his "hands-on" method of constituent service got him into trouble). He is an example of progressives touting contraception and abortion, not just as a solution to unwed births, but to the "overpopulation" problem.

In 1970, Packwood proposed three bills to limit the American population. One bill reduced child tax credits. Another bill provided for widespread contraceptive information. Another bill urged liberalization of the abortion laws, with Congress setting an example in the District of Columbia (Eva R. Rubin, ed., *The Abortion Controversy: A Documentary History,* Greenwood Press, 1994, 72-75).

Packwood made clear that his proposals were designed to limit the population:

"But at some stage, even the United States is finite. At some point we will reach a limit where we cannot handle, we cannot feed, we cannot house all the people who can be born in this country.

"I would rather that we face that problem now, and start to undertake a policy of national populartion restraint whereby we can look forward to limiting the population of this countryy by voluntary means, so that we do not have to, in 30, 40, or 50 years, look forward to limiting it by compulsory means."

|4.14.07 @ 1:39PM|#

So in sum: The liberal regime in abortion and contraception has been established. The promised reduction in teenage births (or births in general) didn't materialize. What's the reason? How have the birth-restricting results of contraception and abortion been cancelled out? Presumably, by more extramarital sex where the parties don't intend to get married.

Fluffy|4.14.07 @ 1:46PM|#

The justification for contraception rights and abortion rights isn't a promised improvement in aggregate statistics.

As a matter of fact, aggregate statistics are irrelevant.

The only question that matters is whether the state can justly declare contraception to be contraband for ME, PERSONALLY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL. Teen pregancy rates could jump to 99% and it wouldn't mean a thing. The only important question is whether you, Mad Max, singly or in combination with other citizens, have the moral authority to tell me not to have sex with another consenting adult, or have the moral authority to tell me that I can't put a piece of plastic on my dick when I do. You don't. It's that simple.

And if we tried completely eliminating state support for children born out of wedlock, and also changed the civil law to make it impossible to gain child support for a child born out of wedlock, something tells me the "problem" we have with children born out of wedlock would go away.

And I don't particularly care what Bob Packwood's reasons were for anything, on any subject.

|4.14.07 @ 1:52PM|#

"Albionite "

Well, he had to watch, to make sure everyone did take a shower. After all, it was part of the grade.

|4.14.07 @ 1:57PM|#

Jimmy smith

funny...no, not scary...those of us who had normal school experiences know better.

but, erm, why my name in scary quotes? I promise, I'm not your coach!

Ryan|4.14.07 @ 2:00PM|#

Evidence does not matter to Salafi Christians. To them it is about "having faith." In other words, accepting dogma without evidence.

|4.14.07 @ 2:23PM|#

Mrs. bro ben and I have teens, a son and a daughter. We preach abstinence to them for several reasons. Having been a serious horn-dog as a young man, I am aware what my daughter is up against and we have tried to explain it to her without creepin her out too much.
however
We have also helped them to understand the risks of unprotected sex. They both speak openly about their "love" lifes and they know they can come to us for birth control without fear. We would prefer them to be abstinent, but arent naive enough to demand it of them.
So far , so good.

Albionite, the older I get , the smarter my parents are.

|4.14.07 @ 2:25PM|#

"The only important question is whether you, Mad Max, singly or in combination with other citizens, have the moral authority to tell me not to have sex with another consenting adult, or have the moral authority to tell me that I can't put a piece of plastic on my dick when I do. You don't."

Then it's probably just as well that I didn't "tell" you anything of the sort, that is, never threatened you with fines or imprisonment for consensual-adult-in-private activities.

"And if we tried completely eliminating state support for children born out of wedlock, and also changed the civil law to make it impossible to gain child support for a child born out of wedlock, something tells me the 'problem' we have with children born out of wedlock would go away."

I agree that this could have very salutary results. There will always be out-of-wedlock births, but maybe not so many if they're not subsidized by the taxpayer or the putative father.

|4.14.07 @ 2:35PM|#

1. Because I never pass up a chance to discuss my sons' extraordinary cuteness, last night at dinner my eight-year-old wanted to discuss 'girl problems.' Seems a girl in his class whom he likes but doesn't LIKE has a crush on him. He later said he'd have to talk to his classmate Jake, who at age nine, "has a lot more experience with women."

2. I have no idea how to do anything about it, but I strongly believe that no one of high school age is ready to have sex and I really, really, really, really want to discourage my sons from it before they're about 21. After that, I just don't want to know. (I also want to emphasize to them that having sex with a random stranger just because you're horny, drunk, and want to brag to your buddies is asinine and obnoxious, but that's for a different thread.) That said, abstinence ed. seems to be an astonishing waste of money. None of the curricula I've seen makes any points worth mentioning, and they rely on sadistic or just gross projects to do it. (Someone tries that tape thing on Andy or Aaron and she'll be in court in a heartbeat.) Honestly, I should be sympathetic to the abstinence crowd but I'm mostly irritated.

|4.14.07 @ 2:38PM|#

brotherben, would you consider writing a sex ed book? That's the sanest thing I've read on the subject in ages.

Virginia|4.14.07 @ 2:39PM|#

Am I the only person who finds a study (the Guttmacher one Ron links to, not the Waxman one that the article is about) purporting to show that 99% of people have sex, and 95-97% do it before marriage, a little tough to take seriously? I mean, is there any voluntary activity, other than perhaps eating, that 99% of people engage in?

|4.14.07 @ 2:43PM|#

Fluffy, we tried what you're suggesting way back in the Victorian period. Result: if an unmarried woman got pregnant (due to fooling around, rape, etc.) she would get kicked out of society (with kid) to fend for herself. Result: a lot of kids and women in acute poverty, no support system, a lot of early deaths. Not that great a way to reproduce the next generation.

Putting all the onus on the woman doesn't seem very fair, does it? Especially if the guy can walk away with no consequences.

Ditto for those who want schools to black-ball "unchaste" students. Same double-standard: the pregnant teenager gets the booing and the hissing and the boy who got her pregnant walks away and brags about it. We've had too many cases like that already. And if you guys can think of a way where the guys fooling around get stomped on as hard as the girls, good luck implementing it.

|4.14.07 @ 2:45PM|#

Well Ron, abstinence education programs have still produced as many positive results as embryonic stem cell research.

How 'bout we don't fund either one of them with federal money?

|4.14.07 @ 2:55PM|#

"And if you guys can think of a way where the guys fooling around get stomped on as hard as the girls, good luck implementing it."

Since the Victorian era, they discovered a thing called DNA. There's also *adoption,* which (I think) existed in the Victorian era, too.

I have no brief for the Victorians, but the Victorian era in England and America was closer to the libertarian paradigm than some H&R folks seem to acknowledge. There was more insistence on personal responsibility and less insistence of having the government clean up people's messes. There was also a strong civil society and, yes, those who violated moral standards were not treated very nicely by civil society. But some sort of civil society would seem to be necessary in a libertarian community to take over what would otherwise end up as government responsibilities.

|4.14.07 @ 2:58PM|#

Another point about Victorian-era America (not so much England): If you [bleep]ed up your life, you could move to another community where people didn't know you, and make a fresh start. Since there wasn't any national ID system, you could basically re-invent yourself in a new community without getting hassled by a whole lot of drama from your previous community.

|4.14.07 @ 3:03PM|#

Karen,

I have no idea how to do anything about it, but I strongly believe that no one of high school age is ready to have sex...

I would probably agree with you if you said "most kids of high school age..." but it seems to me that there actually are some solid, smart 17 or 18-year-olds out there who are well aware of all the physical and emotional ramifications of sex and act accordingly and responsibly. Not "most" by any means, but certainly some.

The human body is physically ready (and often aching) for sex in the teen years, so it seems to me it's really all about education and emotional maturity (which has, I think, mostly everything to do with the relationship a teen has had with his/her parents).

|4.14.07 @ 3:05PM|#

And in a related story, from The Onion:

"Teen Sex Linked To Drugs And Alcohol, Reports Center For Figuring Out Really Obvious Things"

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38603

-jcr

|4.14.07 @ 3:09PM|#

"it seems to me that there actually are some solid, smart 17 or 18-year-olds out there who are well aware of all the physical and emotional ramifications of sex and act accordingly and responsibly."

If they're *that* responsible, they should marry the object of their affection.

Who, exactly, is aware of *all* the physical and emotional ramifications of sex? There are people in their 50s who haven't figured it out yet (see Wolfowitz, Paul).

|4.14.07 @ 3:12PM|#

Mad Max, that's a double-edged sword. In Victorian England people were generally much more suspicious of "outsiders" than we are now, so it's not like you could just pick up and start a new life with no consequences.

|4.14.07 @ 3:13PM|#

"brotherben, would you consider writing a sex ed book?"

Karen, I mentioned this to mrs. bro ben. She said, "great idea! Maybe we can get Al Sharpton to write about the ethics of christianity while we're at it."

|4.14.07 @ 3:15PM|#

If they're *that* responsible, they should marry the object of their affection.

Why is it necessary to marry someone to have responsible sex? Isn't it asking a bit much for a teenager to swear lifelong loyalty to someone just in order to have sex with them?

|4.14.07 @ 3:20PM|#

Who, exactly, is aware of *all* the physical and emotional ramifications of sex? There are people in their 50s who haven't figured it out yet (see Wolfowitz, Paul).

It's easy to know all of the physical ramifications. Knowing the emotional ones have to do with the degree of honesty and communication between the people having sex.

Wolfowitz is a good example why government employees should be abstinent until marriage.

|4.14.07 @ 3:22PM|#

Crimethink,

Actually, I specifically *excluded* England from my analysis, because it is (or was at the time) a more static society than America. Go USA!

Les,

"Why is it necessary to marry someone to have responsible sex? Isn't it asking a bit much for a teenager to swear lifelong loyalty to someone just in order to have sex with them?"

The term "just" is telling.

|4.14.07 @ 3:24PM|#

brotherben

I have a feeling that I will be crawling toward my father (who, 20 years ago, was "that ignorant bastard") in a few years, begging for advice. I have this strange feeling he'll demand that I send the kids away for a few weeks in the summer to "go fishing with grandpa."

I seem to remember having to go to my grandpa's lake house many years ago. I think I hated it at first (no TV).

The older I get, the more I realize that grandparents are the last resort of civilization. God, I can't wait to be "Grandpa."!

|4.14.07 @ 3:28PM|#

"Why is it necessary to marry someone to have responsible sex?"

That question reminds me of Frank Meyer's critique of libertarianism or, as he called it, "Libertinism." Your typical libertarian is left cold by any suggestion that a tradition dating back thousands of years has any kind of presumptive validity.

If something has presumptive validity, it can still be proven false, but the burden of coming up with evidence is on the one who says it's false. The arguments against slavery - a tradition frequently cited by libertarians - are an example of how to overcome the presumption of validity.

In other words, the burden is not on me to show why several thousand years of tradition are right; the burden is on those who think several thousand years' worth of tradition are wrong. Rote recitals of phrases like "slavery was a tradition" won't cut it.

|4.14.07 @ 3:32PM|#

The term "just" is telling.

Okay, but you didn't answer my question. Why is it necessary to marry someone to have responsible sex?

It seems that sex, for you, is something only to be shared with someone you love enough to marry. That's great for you. But that doesn't mean it's the way everyone should feel about it. Many fine, upstanding people have had casual sex responsibly and with positive results.

|4.14.07 @ 3:41PM|#

Les,

As I mentioned above, I don't think you have formulated the question correctly. *I* don't have the burden of *proving* that thousands of years of tradition are right; you have the responsibility of showing that thousands of years of tradition are wrong. Thousands of years of tradition associate responsible sex with marriage. Why was every generation prior to ours wrong?

|4.14.07 @ 3:43PM|#

Obligatory libertarian disclaimer: I am not endorsing punishing adults with imprisonment or criminal fines for consensual activities carried out in private, except in extraordinary circumstances not applicable in this context (AIDS, etc).

|4.14.07 @ 3:44PM|#

Ah! You did answer my question! Sorry!

Anyway.

I think it's mistaken for you to assume that people haven't been having responsible, casual sex for as long as there have been people.

In other words, the burden is not on me to show why several thousand years of tradition are right; the burden is on those who think several thousand years' worth of tradition are wrong.

I disagree. There is no requirement to demonstrate why I should decide what to do with my body with another consenting adult, regardless of what tradition dictates.

Personally, I reject the tradition of abstinence before marriage for a few reasons. It's unnatural, first and foremost. It was and is based on arbitrary and usually religious dogma. It entails (still) an unequal treatment of the sexes and includes outright cruelty towards women who feel like they own their bodies enough to decide who they're going to have sex with, and under what circumstances.

I would never argue that someone who decides to wait until marriage to have sex shouldn't do so. Everyone should be free to do with their bodies what they want.

Jeff|4.14.07 @ 3:46PM|#

This is all giving me a raging clue.

|4.14.07 @ 3:48PM|#

What would really help with the teen sex problem would be a federal Masturbation Education Program. Furthermore, I volunteer my services as the Wanking Czar.

|4.14.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Why was every generation prior to ours wrong?

Partly, because an integral element to the tradition was a frightened ignorance and an inevitable hypocrisy that comes with putting value judgements on neutral, natural acts.

|4.14.07 @ 3:54PM|#

"responsible, casual sex"

Is that like "military intelligence"?

"[Abstinence before marriage is] unnatural, first and foremost."

Unnatural, like sodomy? Careful, you might get your Libertarian Purity Certification (TM) yanked! I assure you that can be very painful.

"arbitrary and usually religious dogma"

I think that every belief system has its dogmas (the dogma of sexual liberation, for example). Isn't it interesting, though, that every previous major civilization, despite differences in religion (including China, where the elite followed nontheistic Confucianism and, later, Communism, both of which are non-"religious," or at least non-theistic philosophies) has associated sex with marriage?

|4.14.07 @ 3:56PM|#

The problem is anything that brings any sort of temporary joy or happiness is dangerous and taboo. SEX, DRUGS, TOBBACCO, "JUNK" FOOD ect.

|4.14.07 @ 3:57PM|#

December 2nd, 2004?!? Who blogs about a 2 1/2 year old newspaper article? Spending some time in your personal Wayback machine, Ron?

|4.14.07 @ 3:58PM|#

Mad Max,

First could you explain how exactly premarital sex cannot be responsible?

Second, polygamy and cousin-marriage have been (and are still in many places) more common than monogamous, non-incestuous relationships throughout history. Are you saying we should cling to those traditions too?

In the past, marriage served a social function that it really no longer does for much of the world. Also, marriage has historically been unavailable for many due to their social status. And for those it has been available, the men were often free to do what (and whom) they wished while the woman was tied to the home.

Like Les, I'm all for people using their bodies as they choose, and picking whether/when/whom to marry based on their own beliefs., but traditions do change with the times.

|4.14.07 @ 4:01PM|#

"'Why was every generation prior to ours wrong?'

"Partly, because an integral element to the tradition was a frightened ignorance and an inevitable hypocrisy that comes with putting value judgements on neutral, natural acts."

You don't have to go as far as Jeremy Lott, and defend hypocrisy

http://tinyurl.com/235vqh

in order to be skeptica of the hypocrisy argument. The question is whether this generation has a special immunity from hypocrisy. I think not. Nor does the present generation have any special exemption from ignorance.

|4.14.07 @ 4:09PM|#

"Second, polygamy and cousin-marriage have been (and are still in many places) more common than monogamous, non-incestuous relationships throughout history. Are you saying we should cling to those traditions too?"

What do you mean "we"? Is America one of the cultures where polygamy and cousin-marriage are accepted? If not, then since our traditions don't include such practices, they don't have any presumptive validity.

For those cultures where such practices *are* traditional, then those who would abolish such practices have the burden of proof. I happen to think that the monogamists would be able to meet their burden of proof, but since I'm not in those cultures, I don't feel an urgent need to assist reformers there. Maybe if the reformers ask for my help I could think more on this issue, but the reformers haven't asked for my help.

I'm afraid the citation of polygamy cuts *against* the argument for extramarital sex. If we are to follow the example of polygamous cultures, then those who want to have sex with multiple partners must marry those partners first. I doubt very much that the cheerleaders of extramarital sex want to endorse polygamy, not least because the feminist establishment believes (correctly, by the way) that polygamy isn't particularly respectful of women.

|4.14.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Unnatural, like sodomy? Careful, you might get your Libertarian Purity Certification (TM) yanked! I assure you that can be very painful.

Good point. Sodomy, like organized sports, are a good kind of "unnatural," in my opinion.

I think that every belief system has its dogmas (the dogma of sexual liberation, for example).

But sexual liberation doesn't condemn as inferior those who choose abstinence. Sexual liberation is about freedom of choice. The tradition of abstinence until marriage has always been about no freedom of choice and the condemnation of those who choose sex outside of marriage.

Isn't it interesting, though, that every previous major civilization, despite differences in religion (including China, where the elite followed nontheistic Confucianism and, later, Communism, both of which are non-"religious," or at least non-theistic philosophies) has associated sex with marriage?

Well it's understandable. When you want to control a large group of people, you decrease their choices and individuality while baselessly pretending that deviating from the accepted norm is dangerous. But all of the cultures you mention qualify as "dogmatic."

Again, regardless of the traditions, the documented, inarguable fact is that people have been having sex outside of marriage forever. All the traditions they lived among merely forced them to do it in great secrecy and in greater ignorance of the ramifications.

|4.14.07 @ 4:20PM|#

I'm not entirely clear on why you took my "we" to mean "America". Were you saying the tradition of marriage goes back thousands of years in the United States? Apologies for my misunderstanding.

Anyway, polygamy does have a tradition in the west, just not for many many hundreds of years. It was common in Russia until the time of Peter the Great. Again, in these cultures (as in old Mormon) culture polygamy (like monogamous marriage until recently) was only an option available to those of certain wealth or status.And there is a much more recent and strong tradition of cousin marriage in both western and American societies.

I'm pretty sure reformers in those cultures focus more on political rights and that sort of thing. I'm not aware of any mass movements against polygamy (other than slippery-slope arguments here against gay marriage).

Again, I'm not opposed to marriage or monogamy (in or outside of marriage), but I don't feel that people should be compelled to act a certain way, especially in such important matters all for the sake of "tradition" (and only some traditions, but not others, since people in the past didn't always know better, except when they apparently did).

|4.14.07 @ 4:22PM|#

The question is whether this generation has a special immunity from hypocrisy. I think not. Nor does the present generation have any special exemption from ignorance.

I agree with you, but the present generation does have is a much greater access to information (a potential for less ignorance) and much less fear of ostracization for sexual choices they make. It is fairly well documented that kids today know a lot more about sex than kids of previous generations, though it is interesting that here in the U.S. the rate of teen pregnancy is much higher than European countries where teens have just as much sex, but more information.

|4.14.07 @ 4:23PM|#

"When you want to control a large group of people, you decrease their choices and individuality while baselessly pretending that deviating from the accepted norm is dangerous."

Really? Doesn't the governments of Europe, and their socialist and quasi-socialist governing classes, want to control a large group of people? Then why don't the socialists and their fellow-travellers in Europe encourage traditional marriage, instead of enthusiastically promoting alternative family arrangements?

Why does the hard-core left in this country seek simultaneously to undermine traditional family arrangements and to increase government power over the individual?

Why do the crypto-socialists who run the public schools want to operate independently of the wishes of parents concerning the kind of propaganda to be pumped into the children?

Could it be that, for those who support full-on government power, traditional family arrangements are actually an *obstacle*? Traditional family loyalties can impede acceptance of the government's policies. Is it purely an accident, then, that supporters of ambitious government projects often want to undermine the traditional family, when such underming *just happens* to break down one of the barriers between the individual and tyranny?

jgray|4.14.07 @ 4:24PM|#

Christianity may not be so canny
but some forms of Shia Islam have
a 'defined benefit, mutually
consenting, limited fixed duration
marriage' so you can get married for, say, a week, fuck all you want, then go back to
being single, no strings attached. Sweet!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Mut'ah

jgray|4.14.07 @ 4:28PM|#

reply to this